?re Table I: "% Chg" (percent change?) is not a good measure here.The analysis itself looks at the simple differences. Percent change,(or its alternate form, relative difference) is rarely appropriatewhen the two values involved can have different signs.?

OK - I see. In any event, I?m hoping that the nature of the resultsfrom the 2nd round of analysis will such as to pass the ?IOTT? in avery obvious way (unless you?re analysis of the means and averageslopes in my most recent two posts tell you that we can?t use yourfirst cut on a definition of average slope.

You wrote:

?re Table II: The trick is to compare p(j)*(14-j) to alpha, insteadof comparing p(j) to alpha/(14-j). That way you can simply scan downand see what you would have to change your chosen alpha to in orderto declare the j'th test "significant". Thus, .005 * (14-3) = .055,which is twice your chosen alpha (.025) and so should probably not becalled significant.?

Yes ? I?ve recomputed and see exactly what you mean. Don?t know howrules of construction of Bonferonni tables got garbled on my end sincewe used them for the original cust-het-t-tests. Thanks forstraightening me out.

You wrote:

"Also: why .025 instead of .05? Are the p's one-tailed when youreallywant them to be two-tailed? Such things should be part of the report."

No - they're 2-tailed. I picked .025 just to have something that Ithought would be less arguable than .05.